An educational neuroscientific enquiry into the dynamics of moral thought: Probing the personal, affective, and social nexus in the neurobiological construction of moral meanings and judgements, and their linguistic communication

Abstract

Research into human morality and the teaching of moral values education (MVE) in schools has a long and often distinguished history, though most of it was conducted without any reference to the human brain. This thesis conducts an educational neuroscientific enquiry into the dynamics of moral thought that closely aligns with the affirmation of the Australia Values Education Program (AVEP) that, at the heart of MVE there should be a commitment to each student’s personal, academic, social and emotional wellbeing. The focus of this thesis is the personal, affective, and social nexus in the neurobiological construction of moral meanings and judgements, and their linguistic communication. This inquiry is novel and significant in drawing on the neurobiological individuality of the human brain, and the philosophical concepts of personal knowledge and understanding, to support the claim that moral meanings and judgements are inherently personal. This claim involves the recognition that moral thought and language are distinct processes in the brain. Taken together, these claims act as a counterpoint to the strong emphasis placed on the sociocultural and sociolinguistic emphasis that has traditionally guided research into human morality and the teaching of moral values. This thesis fully recognises the sociocultural embeddedness of human brains and hence the social context of moral meanings and judgements, and the role of language in interpersonally communicating them. Nevertheless, it does so by drawing on key insights from the literature on (a) neural plasticity and the interweaving of thought and emotion in the brain, (b) the science of complex, dynamic systems, and (c) the neurobiological consensus that all brains are different, together with the philosophical concept of ‘personal knowledge and understanding’ that is not advocating subjectivity or sociocultural relativism, but rather as a hallmark of objective science.